Now I don't want to get off on a rant here...

If we can agree that there are some moral absolutes, why is it such a stretch to imagine that some issues of morality change over time? The three examples you listed are crimes against other people. Issues of who one is allowed to marry or when one is allowed to end their own life are not. If an adult's choices solely regarding his own life isn't where the line is drawn, where is it?

I've got to take issue with a key point in your argument: that secular-humanism is a fundamentally "relativist" worldview. Why should morality be reserved for the faithful? Agnosticism or athiesm is not mutually exclusive from a strong moral compass. A belief in religious freedom and tolerance does NOT extend all the way to apologies for jihad or the Crusades. Taking communion and ritual genital mutilation are NOT the same in the eyes of a non-believer. Similarly, the non-religious do NOT necessarily advocate the universal banning of religious texts, places or methods of worship.

Secular-humanism is underlined by a belief in the fundamental decency & dignity of every human being, and that respect must be given - BUT to those who earn it.

Jeff,

I don't understand why you continue to argue that liberalism is defined by such relativistic morality that we would defend the murder of thousands of people as being "nothing more than the free expression of his Islamic religion that considers us infidels and we must be tolerant of his beliefs." Do you honestly believe that morality that is not lock-step with Christianity is therefore unbounded relativism?

I find this kind of argumentation intensely frustrating and I don't even know, sometimes, why I bother to comment because I find myself having to debunk an absurd straw man.

I guess I'm writing now to ask if you actually believe these things you write, or if you're just trying to spark debate with those who feel compelled to tell you that your definition of liberalism continues to be way off from the actual tenants of liberalism?

Thanks for the interaction with these ideas here. Admittedly, I had hoped to focus more on the enforcement of financial equality here, but I suppose with my example of relativism I drew more attention to that idea.

MT – That is a great question of where do we draw the line!? I surmise from the way your question is posed that you put the wants and needs of the individual pretty high in the ranking of what freedom means to you. I am an adult and if my choices don’t directly affect others, then I should be able to make whatever choice I want.

To that I would say that simply by being in community, by being a part of society as a whole you will always affect people with your choices whether directly or indirectly. The sum total of our culture’s choices has a collective voice that will reflect our chosen view of morality. There are consequences that are far reaching into the lives of others based on that loud billowing voice.

Seb – The belief in decency and dignity of every human being is a great ideal to focus on to bring justice and righteousness into the world. The issue I have is the method and the focus of the individual in the pursuit of this social justice. Putting the individual or mankind at the top of the pyramid gives way to varying definitions of decency and dignity. This allows those inherently good beliefs to get distorted in the relativistic pursuit of what one feels are decent and proper.

The idea of earned respect is an unfortunate example of this relativism. As an open, loving and tolerant society, shouldn’t we be willing to give respect and trust to others until they give us reason not to, rather than the other way around? If the practice of secular humanism cannot even exude the ideals that it purports to be seeking in the first place and by definition it is a belief that weighs and tests ideas, why hasn’t it discarded itself already?

Seadragon – I appreciate your willingness, despite your frustration, to comment on my “absurdities”. The example I used for a relativistic worldview was an extreme one I will admit, and perhaps I shouldn’t have used it because it seems to have taken the focus away from what I was trying to convey. At the same time, I believe that to stay consistent with a secular humanist/agnostic/atheistic/relativistic worldview, it is difficult to condemn the 9/11 hijackers. Because they weren’t doing anything more than expressing their worldview and in a society that wants to put the individual wants and needs of a person at the top than it is only natural to allow others the free expression of their ideals which must be tolerated.

In the end your question to me seems to be do I believe that someone that isn’t Christian is incapable of moral acts? No I do not believe that. I do not believe that you need to accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to perform a moral and decent act. I do believe that God is the author of morality and that not believing in Him and not accepting the death of His Son on the cross for your sins can very easily taint and skew a person’s view of morality. I say this because secular humanism not only puts man at the center of the universe; it says that man is essentially good or moral. While a Christian puts God at the center of the universe; and says that man is essentially sinful and in need of redemption. Therefore, man apart from God, the author of morality, will in essence turn away from this very ideal. The wonderful promise of Christianity is that we have hope for redemption and the unfortunate fallacy of secularism is that we do not need deliverance.

Jeff!!!

[deep breath] :)

How can you say that in a "secular humanist/agnostic/atheistic/relativistic worldview, it is difficult to condemn the 9/11 hijackers" and that "they weren’t doing anything more than expressing their worldview"?! WHO says that?! Find me one liberal who actually believes that we need to have tolerance for murderers simply because it's their world view that they should kill others who don't share their beliefs. Seriously, this is what I mean when I say that you're portraying an "absurd straw man".

It's fine if you want to discuss that straw man and argue how it's wrong. Arguing against straw man claims can be fun because it's easy. But don't pin that argument on the liberals, because that is NOT what they're arguing for.

I think there is a part of you that recognizes what liberals are arguing for: "the free expression of their ideals which must be tolerated". But then you seem to take this argument to (what you seem to think is) its "logical conclusion", which is that tolerance should be extended even when it encroaches on the rights of others (i.e., killing them). And I just want to point out that that is not even a logical consequence. When one group kills another, then they are taking away the freedoms of that other group, and as such, is NOT to be tolerated. So in fact, there is a fairly easy line to draw, at least with regard to killings, in the extent to which differing world views should be tolerated. My understanding of liberal principles is that individual rights should be protected, meaning tolerance for differing beliefs, but there must be restrictions on those differences if they begin to encroach on someone else's freedom.

As for the question I posed to you, whether "you actually believe these things you write", I see now that I wasn't very clear. I didn't mean to ask whether you thought only Christians could act in a moral way. What I really meant is that I wondered if you truly believed that for liberals "with a secular humanist/agnostic/atheistic/relativistic worldview, it is difficult to condemn the 9/11 hijackers." This is the kind of straw man argument I hear on conservative talk radio and FOX news. But I hope that you can see that this is NOT the argument actually put forth by liberals. I found it hard to swallow that you actually believe that that's what liberals think, and so that's why I was asking that question.

I have to put the question to you again, do you still believe that liberals believe that tolerance should be allowed to every extreme, even if it means allowing people to murder other people? (And to jump the gun a little, if you actually do believe that, then I have to say you're wrong about what liberals believe!)

(Granted, there may be a few extreme liberals out there that do believe that. I don't know who they are, but I'm sure they're out there. I'm assuming you're not talking about the extreme case though, unless again, you're attempting to debunk a straw man argument.)

And now, if this comment isn't already long enough... :)

I just wanted to say, again, that I appreciate this dialog. And I hope that my responding to your post at all indicates that I think you are intelligent and really willing to think through an argument as you work to understand and promote your own viewpoint. I only comment here because I believe that you are misrepresenting the opposing viewpoint. While it is perfectly fine with me if you don't agree with me (or liberals more generally), I would think you'd want your debate to be well-informed, especially with regard to who you are arguing against!

I don't think I'll ever agree with you on several issues (e.g., with regard to homosexual marriage, I don't believe that it's wrong and therefore I don't believe that it harms others just by existing), but I do think we share a desire to understand each other's points of view. At least that's why I keep coming back to your blog. Hopefully, I've helped you to better understand what the liberal viewpoint is all about.

Forgive me for not clarifying this point. I was not trying to build the scarecrow and say that I have heard liberals say, “Osama isn’t that bad of a guy.” I was simply trying to convey that remaining consistent on a “tolerance trumps dogmatism” worldview there is a slippery slope. As you define the need for tolerance to end at the encroachment of others freedom you recognize that not all beliefs are created equal.

I think that it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain boundaries on the tolerance of ideas when one of the pillars of liberal ideology is tolerance and acceptance of everyone. This is not to say that I believe that either word is innately bad. I do think the line of encroached freedoms begins to blur as we look to the individual to decide if in fact their freedoms have been tread on by someone else’s belief system.

This is where I see a relativistic view of morality. When we begin to adhere to a viewpoint that says, “this is true for me but not for you”, and apply that to morality we never know which way the compass is pointing. One person’s trash is another person’s treasure. This viewpoint consistently applied to all of life is a dangerous path.

So perhaps you are right that this is not a viewpoint that is consistently applied because part of my focus here was to show the inconsistency with the application to economic equality. While the basis seems to come from an egalitarian view of economic justice, there is an adherence here to an absolute.

Rather than saying, “Government should play a limited role in the enforcement of morality, but a major role in the enforcement of financial equality”, I should edit this principle. Government should play a major role in the enforcement of the equality of all ideas, sociological and economic. Thus adhering to the absolute of equality in morals and money and yet still standing in direct opposition to the moral absolute of the author of morality itself as the absolute of equality allows for the relativity of ideas to the personal freedom of expression.

Thank you for helping me to clarify that point and dialoging with me here. Your comments are always welcome as they put forth a passion for your ideas yet are tempered with a desire to actually engage my viewpoint. Plus it’s always neat to see my name followed by so many exclamation points!!!

Jeff, now I don't want to get off on a rant here, and I know you're probably sick to death of being yelled at over the 9/11 comment, and I know you made it to demonstrate a point, but since you went and made the comment...

Would I be a jerk if I pointed out that it was two self proclaimed moral absolutists of a certain fundamentalist Christian persuasion that, rather than condem the attacks, said America got what it deserved on 9/11? (They later apologized). Would I be a jerk if I pointed out that, on the Sunday after the attacks, the dealer in humanistic relativism in the culturally sensitive Unitarian Universalist Church - of liberal evil San Francisco of all places! - delivered a sermon which stated, "we should pray for peace, and we should pray for tolerance, but we should also not forget the bravery of the fire fighters and honor that bravery with our demands that those who did this meet with God's swift and undeniable Justice!"? And never mind failure to condem, those who perpetrated the attacks did so in absolute conviction of their misbegotten faith. The attacks stemmed from a fundamentally illiberal mindset. So, much like seadragon, I'm a little unsure off of which wall you're coming with that. I won't ask the question I know you think I will. (A winking emoticon would go here if I actually typed such things).

The slippery slope argument doesn't hold any water either. It's a classical fallacy. Unfortunately it's the sum total of your entire refutation of a non-existent principle. If we fail to make adjustments in the moral compass based on new understanding, you'd have to give up your Black&Tan's pretty quick.

I'm with you on the free expression thing though. I wonder if you've read "Closing of the American Mind"? Allan Bloom, in that book, makes the point that "freedom of speech" is most certainly NOT the same thing as "freedom of expression". For instance, saying "My only regret is that he didn't blow up the New York Times building" is free speech, while actually blowing up the New York Times building, if tolerated, would be freedom of expression which is best kept stifled. Bloom says many other things with which you might agree - he goes after not only moral relativism, but cutlural and educational forms as well. Unfortunately he claims that the absolutes in all form flow from Athens, not Christ. It never ceases to amaze me - though it should - that the one thing absolutists of all stripes agree on is that there is an absolute that everyone else should follow. The rest of us just get to be burned at the stake, shot at, blown up, burned in ovens, tortured, beheaded and otherwise maimed in the crossfire of wars between people we wish would just leave well enough alone and go about their business like the rest of the sane world.

Jay,

No problems talking about the 9/11 comment. It was unfortunate the focus tended towards knee-jerk reactions to that statement then actually following the train of thought to that conclusion. I chalk that up to my failure to communicate the ideas clearly though.

I won’t defend the fundy Christians you refer to, nor refute the “culturally sensitive” sermon here. However; I will say that I believe in a sovereign God that orchestrates all of creation to glorify His name. Which means that while the actions of the 9/11 hijackers/planners should be condemned and they must take full responsibility for their actions, there is a greater purpose here for which God will use in bringing about His plan for creation. Am I saying that God is to blame for the 9/11 attacks? Emphatically NO, that is the author of sin not creation at work. Did God allow it to happen to bring about His greater glory, redirecting our attention towards taking a proactive approach in defeating terrorism? Yes I believe so.

The problem with seeing the slippery slope as a “classical fallacy” is the compartmentalization of ideas. It is a failure to see the relationships and connections of one idea to another. As for the moral compass argument you present about drinking alcohol, there is no biblical mandate against drinking, drunkenness yes. Those that seek to present an argument that drinking is absolutely wrong either in the past or at present, do so by adding words to Scripture that aren’t there. So I’ll keep on drinkin my Black & Tan’s. In moderation!

Your point is well taken on the difference of speech and expression. I have not read that book, but after just recently reading a book about the Apostle Paul it is not surprising that someone would attribute a wealth of ideas coming from Athens. During Paul’s missionary journeys he traveled to Athens where he witnessed the idolatrous worship of a pluralistic society, much like ours is today. There he interacted with the people that had a common vocation of sitting around talking about knowledge. He was asked to expound on his ideas after some time of interacting with the people. As every opportunity to share the Gospel message will bring about, some will believe, some will be intrigued and some will be enraged. I would say that what separates Christianity from any other form of absolute, is that it requires one to focus on the glory of God, rather than the glory of self.

Admittedly, these interactions have caused me to edit my principle as I have seen that even a relativistic view of the world is in fact an absolutist position as well. So is anyone in the world really “sane”?

Jeff, I'm glad you don't have a problem with me talking about the 9/11 comment. I think that particular type of statement, regardless of context, rankles simply because that event is used as a pretext to call people "traitors", as if by being a liberal you immediatley thought of 9/11 as a good thing. Some people, myself included, are getting really sick and tired of that.

I'm glad we agree on the difference between freedom of speech and freedom of expression. I thnk tolerance of the former is fine, tolerance of the latter...well, it depends. As to the question of sanity, I use that term, erm, "in a relative sense".

I do have a less jerky question regarding your initial post. If it is true that egalitarian behavior is in some sense biblically mandated, yet it must come from the actions of the individual, why doesn't moral behavior, as prescribed by the bible, fall into the same category? If the government enforces certain behavior, doesn't this invalidate the meaning of said behavior? If I am truly moved by the spirit wouldn't I act as he instructs regardless of the law?

Also, I would say that if you're a liberal, it isn't financial equality you're after, but a level playing field for every generation. This is a slightly different thing than simply taxing the rich to make the poor equal. Social insurance does not exist to make the poor more wealthy, it exists to prevent those who have bad luck from being punished by the market for things beyond their control. That it's been abused is without question, but personally I am willing to pay higher taxes and take that risk. Someday I might find myself in a regrettable position, and if that day comes, I'll be glad to have the help. Also, if the government is in some sense representative of the popular will, don't egalitarian laws represent, to some degree, the very real and very true impulse of the populace of a nation?

Ok, enough questions. I've really enjoyed your liberal principles series. I hope you continue it in one form or another.

What I sought to do with my remarks on Osama was not to show that liberals support him or thought 9/11 was a good thing or that they are traitors, but that the underlying belief system is flawed in its indirect support of this type of ideology. What saddens me is that any critique seems to automatically flow towards traitorous remarks and that is a mistake made by all. Quite frankly, I believe that 9/11 shook our country to its core and people are now scared and holding onto their ideology (what they know) as tight as possible because they don’t know what else to do.

This includes a pre-9/11 mindset that said President Bush was not a good person. When I read his speeches and see the compassion, the vision and the love he has for this country, I am floored that people can react so violently towards him. But we are driven by fear to hold onto what we know no matter what. It is sad and most unfortunate. This is what has divided the country, not the leadership of the President (this tiny rant brought to you by a recent “Impeach Bush” post on another Baltimore Blog).

And now for the “less jerky question(s)”, I think there is a misunderstanding of what I said originally or at least what I intended to say. My intention was to show that helping those that are less fortunate is an act of compassion, not an attempt at economic equality. When I buy a homeless man lunch, I am not attempting to bring him up to my standard of living but to show him that I understand he is hungry and want to do what I can to help, compassion. The regulation of, or the enforcement of moral behavior by the government is to give consequences when that behavior is not followed. You are absolutely right, the Spirit moves in our hearts regardless of the law.

The attempt at creating “a level playing field” or hedging against “bad luck” is something I will deal with more in-depth in my next principle specifically in regards to the safety net against consequences. What I do find interesting is your willingness to pay higher taxes, but only if everyone else is too. It would seem that on this issue, you aren’t pro-choice.

A democratically representative republic has allegiances to the people, to each other and to the country. In all those pledges, they are still called to leadership. Which means taking the people and the country where it needs to go whether it realizes it or not. A populous view of our government leads us no where but to the mob mentality. We have seen mobs do some good things, but generally pretty horrific ones. Do some of these laws represent the pulse of the nation? Yes. Do some of these laws represent poor leadership? Yes. For me, the ideal in leadership is having a vision and lovingly bringing those you lead to an understanding of that dream. What we want and what we need is not always the same thing.

Thanks for playing along and engaging me during this series. There is at least one more installment coming along and indubitably hope you and others will continue to challenge my view points.